True About Canada?

**NeoTheOne** · 03-26-2005, 09:00 PM

Is this true your allowed to downlaod but not upload? in canada

**{I}{K}{E}** · 03-26-2005, 09:24 PM

http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_633.html

**SideSwiped** · 03-26-2005, 09:42 PM

I'm not sure , but, I saw something on the ET forums about this.

Gonna plagerize for a mo'.

Attention all Internet music swappers: your free ride may be about to end.

The federal government has announced amendments to the country’s Copyright Act that could leave those who share everything from tunes to movies online liable for their actions.

The government is proposing to sign two international treaties to protect the rights of artists and copyright holders.

And it would force Internet providers to keep track of users who share high volumes of material using programs like BitTorrent and Kazaa, and report them to the industry.

Under existing laws, and despite endless attempts, judges have repeatedly ruled against music industry efforts to stop the practice in Canada.

Record companies have successfully sued hundreds of file swappers in the U.S. and threatened them with huge fines. They claim the practice is costing them millions of dollars a year in lost sales.

But up until now, they’ve haven’t been able to make much headway north of the border.

The new laws could change all that, and leave many open to the same sort of legal challenges their U.S. cousins now face.

"We must strengthen the hand of our creators and cultural industries against the unauthorized use of their works on the Internet,” claims Liza Frulla, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

It’s a move that’s not likely to please many who enter the illegal swapstakes. Canada has one of the highest rates of online sharing in the world.

Proposed Changes

The existing exclusive communication right of authors would be clarified to include control over the making available of their material on the Internet;
Sound recording makers and performers would be provided the right to control the making available of their sound recordings and performances on the Internet;
Breaking copy protection would be considered an infringement of copyright;
The term of protection in photographs would always be the life of the photographer plus 50 years;
A full reproduction right for performers in sound recordings would be introduced;
The term of protection provided to sound recording makers would be extended to 50 years from the publication of the sound recording
Performers would be provided with moral rights in their fixed and live performances.
ISPs would be exempt from copyright liability after acting as conduits.
When an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber, and to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time.

**cow_dung** · 03-27-2005, 06:15 AM

im from canada and i think so
i remember hearing this from somewhere

**MagicNakor** · 03-27-2005, 10:24 AM

Yeah, it's true. It falls under the personal use clauses (like for VCRs).

**NikkiD** · 03-27-2005, 05:02 PM

[rant]

I can't see the new laws being passed any time soon SideSwiped - they'll be tied up in red tape a lot longer than spring.

A few things that weren't mentioned in that article. Currently, Canadians pay a tariff on recording media - blank CDs, DVDs, cassettes, video cassettes, VCRs, DVD recorders, and CD recorders - which goes directly to the CRIA, and MPAA. This was brought in many years ago, when the CRIA was up in arms about CDs/cassettes being copied. Nothing is stated in the proposed changes about this tariff being removed.

The proposed changes would make it illegal to make any copies whatsoever, of movies and music, even for personal use. This is complete horseshit. It has always been that I could buy a bunch of CDs, rip the songs, and make myself mixed CDs for my own personal use - now this will be illegal? For something I paid for, and plan to use myself? I also am currently within my rights to make a backup copy of anything I purchase, so that the original does not become damaged. This proposed law would make that illegal as well. Why would I purchase something I can't make a backup of? The would have to drastically lower the price - OR - guarantee that said disc will never scratch, deteriorate, or will be replaced if damage occurs, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

The industry themselves make it possible to record movies, television shows and music with the hardware that THEY produce. I can record a fairly new release movie simply by renting it from pay per view and recording it to a PVR or VCR - and can legally do so, as long as I am not planning to rebroadcast it publicly. What is the difference between this and going to the video store, renting a movie, and copying it? Or for that matter, downloading a copy from the internet, over the internet connection I pay for? There is no difference, just a different means of aquiring it. It's the same for television shows - I can record them with my PVR and watch them any time I want - what's the difference between doing that and transferring them to my computer - and downloading the exact same program from the internet? There is none. I don't even have to pay for satellite or cable to do that, just have a good aerial that receives the signal. THEY make the technology available for people to record, copy, and distribute, but then they expect that it won't be used in the manner for which it was produced. I mean look at the facts - why is it illegal to download a divx or xvid movie from the internet - but I can buy a dvd player that is capable of playing divx and xvid movies? Why can your PVR be connected to your computer network, and in some cases, directly to the internet? Why are programs, such as DVD Shrink and DVD Decrypter legal?

The entertainment industry brings out new media every couple of years, and expects that everyone will go out and spend hoardes of money on what they already have - why? So that they can make more money. If they were serious about just an upgrade in quality, then why can I not just trade in my albums for CD?

And what about the quality of product the entertainment industry is producing? I remember when I'd buy a CD and every song on it was good, and I'd listen to the WHOLE thing, not just a few songs. Now, they want artists to release a new album every year, instead of every three, so there might be one or two good songs on an album, and the rest are thrown on there to fill it. Why not give the artists time to create better recordings? So that the music industry can release more of them - quanitity of quality. It's the same with movies, there are more and more new movies being released every year, yet the number of really good movies being released is diminishing. Why is that? Pump out as many as you can, and hope that people will go to see them in droves. They don't care if they're any good, as long as they make money.

Those are just a few of the things I can think of off the top of my head. I'm quite sure there will be a lot of argument over this before it gets passed. Maybe if the entertainment industries started giving a fuck about consumers, consumers would have more qualms about piracy. They whine about losing money - but they aren't. They make more money per year than most countries do. They just aren't making as much money as they could. I really don't see that cutting out p2p is going to help the entertainment industry regain any money, people still won't go to the movies if the movies they put out are crap, people still won't buy CDs if the music is crap.

It all makes me sick really, considering the amount of money I spend per year on DVDs, CDs, satellite services, and movie theatres. Personally, I download things that I want to buy in the future - to see if I want to spend the money or not - and I know many people who do the same. If it's worth it, I spend the money, if it's not, I don't bother. I also download much of what I already have on vinyl, cassette or VHS, for better quality recordings of what I already own.

EDIT: BTW - it is currently legal to download.

[/rant]

**NeoTheOne** · 03-27-2005, 06:44 PM

yea i asked because a topic down is where a guy got a copywright infrigment letter and it sort a freaked me out

**idlewild** · 04-08-2005, 08:59 PM

Yeah its true, but I think they are talking about changing the laws now, but if they do that they would probably have to remove the tax we pay for cdrs, etc...